124 



Mr. Weldon. Thank you very much, Dr. Gershwin. 



I thank all four of you for appearing today and for your excellent 

 statements. I just have a few questions, one that I will repeat from 

 the second panel and that is, what is our total of dollar allocation 

 that we are putting forth out of the Federal budget for Arctic work? 

 I noticed that. Dr. Brass, I think you had your handle on that. 



Dr. Brass. Just let me point to it, Congressman. It is in the 

 back. This, by the way, is the Arctic Research of the United States 

 publication that I mentioned before. The total budget in fiscal year 

 1994 for research in the Arctic was $191 million, in fiscal 1995, 

 $174.9, and in fiscal 1996, proposed, $169.6. Our research funds for 

 the Arctic are steadily declining. 



You might be interested in the DOD totals, which were $35 mil- 

 lion in 1994, $33.6 million in 1995, and $23.2 million in 1996. That 

 reflects the loss of the $10 million Nunn-Lugar threat reduction 

 money. 



Mr. Weldon. Dr. Brass, how much of that money goes through 

 the Arctic Commission and how do you get your funding? 



Dr. Brass. The Arctic Commission does not fund research, Mr. 

 Chairman. 



Mr. Weldon. At all? 



Dr. Brass. It is our job to set policy and guide the interagency 

 group in their formulation of the research plan. 



Mr. Weldon. How are you funded? 



Dr. Brass. We are actually funded as an independent agency but 

 through the appropriation for the National Science Foundation. 



Mr. Weldon. Very good. The impact of the $10 million loss, I 

 guess I should say, first of all, what is undone, and I applaud the 

 job. Admiral Pelaez, that you have done here, and I agree that you 

 have done great work. What is left to be done? What needs to be 

 done, perhaps, as opposed to asking you what amount of money 

 you want, which puts you on the spot. What needs to be done? 



Admiral Pelaez. My assessment would be the following. One, we 

 took some 30,000-plus samples. While the procedures we used to 

 gather some of those samples would not necessarily support the 

 other toxin analysis, many of those samples would and they are 

 preserved but, one, it has not been in our mandate and it has not 

 been in our charter to go look at other pollution sources and their 

 transport. Nevertheless, that is a very rich data base which could 

 serve that, so there is some work to be done there. 



I think that you will see in our assessment that we need to be 

 able to monitor conditions throughout this region. I am particularly 

 concerned about up the rivers and these containment facilities. 

 Some of these rivers, just to put them in perspective, have water- 

 sheds that are the equivalent of half the U.S. mainland. The ability 

 to monitor that, to really get in to more detail on the security of 

 those potential pollutants I think would be an area that we should 

 be looking at as a continuing evolution. 



I believe that our assessment in 1997 will give us an accurate 

 and good and, for the money that we have — we are pretty close to 

 being able to finish that, I think, and if not, I have been supporting 

 it myself. We will be able to give a good assessment of the impact 

 of the existing dumped nuclear waste on the environment and the 

 transport. 



